Nearshore Ocean Progress

The United States needs a new ocean conservation strategy. Climate change is causing rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and increased storm damage,¹ while habitat destruction and unsustainable fishing practices deplete fish stocks and harm marine ecosystems. Although the global campaign to protect 30 percent of the ocean by 2030—often referred to as 30×30—has been effective in raising awareness and setting ambitious conservation goals, the United States must adopt a more holistic and equitable approach to ocean conservation. Increasing focus on conservation opportunities at the state and local levels can help more effectively protect vulnerable ecosystems, provide benefits for coastal communities, create jobs and support working waterfronts, and build popular support for ocean conservation.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs and staffing are crucial for many states’ and territories’ nearshore conservation plans, providing essential resources to protect and restore vital habitats that support diverse marine life and coastal resilience. However, cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will undermine these efforts,² jeopardizing the health of ocean ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. The loss of NOAA’s scientific expertise and resources will hinder efforts to develop sustainable solutions and to safeguard the livelihoods of those who depend on healthy coastal environments, and state and local governments are going to have to step up to fill that void.

This report proposes strategies for going beyond 30×30. It highlights case studies of how state and local policies have effectively protected six key habitats: kelp forests, coastal wetlands, oyster beds, seagrass meadows, coral reefs, and beaches and dunes. These success stories demonstrate the importance of state- and community-led efforts to protect nearshore habitats and provide a blueprint for ocean progress.

For the past two decades, the focus of the American ocean conservation movement has been on designating large remote marine protected areas (MPAs) in order to meet area targets. Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population lives in Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific territories,³ yet these islands are home to 99 percent of the country’s MPAs.⁴ Achieving a healthy, sustainable ocean requires conservation goals that go beyond acreage. Moving forward, the ocean community needs new strategies to ensure that the United States is investing in conservation policies that are geographically representative, just, and effective.

Forty percent of Americans live near a coast.⁵ A major component of this new strategy should be a renewed focus on effective nearshore conservation that works for this 40 percent— supporting sustainable coastal resource use, working waterfronts, and improving access to the ocean.⁶ The United States’ current MPA network largely focuses on protecting pelagic habitats and overlooks many nearshore areas. Several of the most vulnerable habitats in the country—and those that are the most important to peoples, cultures, economies, biodiversity conservation, and carbon sequestration—are near highly populated coastal communities. This proximity can create threats—including development, pollution, and overexploitation—to coastal habitats, but also provides opportunities for ocean advocacy.

States and territories (shortened to “states” hereafter) are crucial in continuing to make progress on coastal conservation. The majority of nearshore habitats fall within state waters, which extend from the coast out to between 3 and 9 nautical miles depending on the jurisdiction.⁷ However, not all states have specific policies for the habitats that this study focuses on and rely on overarching federal management. States have a significant opportunity to chart new paths and make progress on conserving their resources in a way that aligns with social goals.

An ocean strategy focused on nearshore and coastal conservation can grow a better networked, more influential ocean conservation movement in the United States; offer policies that can be advanced at the state, territorial, Tribal, and local levels at a time when there is a lack of federal leadership on ocean and coastal conservation; and model a framework for designing future conservation goals that prioritizes equity, community, and human rights-based approaches.

This approach also opens the opportunity to create new narratives around coastal conservation and fisheries management. Restoring nearshore habitats will do more than just protect ecosystems; it will also create jobs, celebrate Indigenous knowledge, and build power among communities that have historically been marginalized in conservation efforts.⁸ This narrative will also include strategies—including those that increase Indigenous engagement in nearshore areas, such as state-to-Tribe co-management agreements—to better engage diverse stakeholders and local communities to improve equity and buy-in of local conservation policies.

Focusing on nearshore habitats brings new challenges. Many coastal conservation efforts must contend with the complex political, social, and environmental systems facing habitats near population centers. A new strategy needs to address conservation costs and benefits both to ecosystems and human social needs. This will require innovative collaboration, participation, and empowerment of diverse stakeholders in ocean decision-making and management and new strategies such as restoration and climate adaptation in addition to fisheries management and traditional MPAs. To achieve these goals, advocates should look to the states, cities, and other local communities pioneering effective approaches for nearshore conservation.

Additionally, the expected DOGE cuts to NOAA will likely have devastating impacts on coastal communities.⁹ NOAA’s research and monitoring programs are critical for understanding and mitigating the effects of climate change, managing fisheries, and protecting marine ecosystems. Without adequate funding, these communities will face increased vulnerability to extreme weather events, sea level rise, and habitat loss.

The 30×30 campaign is a global effort. In its first days in office, the Biden administration set a goal to conserve 30 percent of lands and waters by 2030.¹⁰ The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity set a similar goal with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022.¹¹

While the 30×30 campaign goal raised conservation ambition,¹² the use of ocean area targets resulted in some unintended consequences,¹³ including many poorly designed, poorly implemented, and unjust MPAs.¹⁴ The global MPA strategy has largely been focused on the designation of large, remote marine protections,¹⁵ while many vulnerable, nearshore ecosystems remain unprotected. The United States exemplifies this: While 26 percent of U.S. ocean waters are protected, less than 1 percent of those protections are in waters of the contiguous United States, leaving many critical habitats for communities and wildlife vulnerable.¹⁶ The MPA designation process also needs more equitable stakeholder engagement processes, particularly for fishers. Better fisher engagement strategies can improve both fish stocks and relations between fishers and fisheries management.

Area targets may disincentivize prioritizing areas in the nearshore and coastal zone—including estuaries, tidally influenced wetlands, and submerged habitats—because these places tend to be much smaller than the pelagic realms in the expansive western Pacific territories. These habitats are crucial for people and wildlife, but may not rank as important if the only goal is to maximize conservation area. For example, only 3.6 percent of kelp habitat is protected,¹⁷ and the percentage of tropical coral reefs protected in the United States varies dramatically from 15 percent in the U.S. Virgin Islands to 2 percent in Guam.¹⁸ These narrow bands of habitat are small in area but are vital as spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for ocean life, including resident and migratory species.

To protect the ecosystems that play an outsize role in healthy wildlife and to ensure ocean conservation is working for the communities that rely on them, the U.S. ocean conservation strategy must go beyond area targets. Metrics of success should be defined in terms of people, processes, and outcomes. In particular, there is a need and opportunity to bring attention to nearshore coastal habitats. This report proposes a conservation strategy that focuses on nearshore habitats and the people who rely on them.

States across the country have achieved conservation success, and there are numerous effective programs and policies that can serve as models for other states and for federal policy. This report offers an ocean progress blueprint for ocean conservation in the United States that delivers conservation outcomes measured in equity, access, and quality. The report focuses on six nearshore habitats—seagrass meadows, coastal wetlands, kelp forests, coral reefs, oyster reefs, and beaches and dunes—and the strategies that state and local groups use to successfully conserve and restore them, as well as innovative ways these projects can be financed.

More than 50 survey and interview responses were collected in developing this report. Respondents include scientists, elected officials, Indigenous and community leaders, and conservation advocates from 13 coastal states, territories, and Washington, D.C. This blueprint was also informed by discussions at several seminars and conferences in 2024, including Upwell, America the Beautiful for All, and the International Marine Conservation Congress. This report provides example case studies of successful conservation measures and makes policy recommendations for states to pursue stronger protections for their nearshore habitats. The report also highlights successful approaches to local ocean conservation and provides a blueprint to more effective, equitable coastal conservation.

Found across the world’s oceans and estuaries, seagrass meadows are highly productive fishery habitats that form the foundation of many coastal ecosystems.¹⁹ Thriving seagrass meadows bolster biodiversity by providing habitats and food for many animals, including crabs, shrimp, scallops, finfish, turtles, and manatees.²⁰ In addition to their ecosystem roles, seagrass meadows have significant impacts for coastal communities and economies. Seagrass meadows provide critical food security by serving as nurseries for young fish and other marine animals that people rely on for food, recreation, and commerce.²¹ They protect coastal areas from erosion and storm damage by buffering wave action and stabilizing sediments.²² Moreover, they act as water filters, absorbing polluting nutrients and improving water clarity for other species.²³ Lastly, they store carbon and act as a major sink for global emissions, helping to buffer ocean acidification and mitigate climate change.²⁴

Despite their importance to ecosystems and coastal communities, seagrass meadows are one of the most threatened ecosystems on Earth and have been declining at alarming rates. Globally, seagrass area declines by an average of 1.5 percent per year, and 29 percent of known seagrass areas were lost between 1879 and 2006.²⁵ Studies suggest that management frameworks for seagrass are largely failing to stop these declines.²⁶ Loss of seagrass beds is primarily attributed to water quality degradation,²⁷ with additional impacts from disease and direct disturbances caused by various coastal land and water uses. These activities can make the water more turbid, as well as alter water and sediment flows, while climate change further contributes to seagrass decline due to warming water temperatures and higher sea levels.²⁸

Success story 1: Tampa Bay Estuary

In Tampa Bay, the local community successfully championed seagrass recovery. Tampa Bay seagrasses suffered significant declines in the 1970s and 1980s, affecting birds, fish, and manatees.²⁹ This decline was largely driven by human development and eutrophication—excess nutrients from sewage and industry accumulating in the bay that in turn drove algal blooms and reduced water clarity. Following an outcry from local citizens, in 1995 the Tampa Bay Estuary Program—part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) national program—adopted numerical seagrass protection and restoration goals (95 percent of 1950s levels or 15,400 hectares) alongside goals for water transparency, chlorophyll concentrations, and nitrogen loading rates.³⁰ These goals came out of a multistep process involving the public and private sectors.³¹ In 2014, the program surpassed this target and recorded that seagrass extent had increased by more than 65 percent since the 1980s.³² This program used several levers to address nutrient levels, including regulatory limits on residential fertilizer, stormwater, wastewater treatment, and nitrogen, as well as voluntary reductions by public-private entities.

One major contributor to the success of this program was the involvement and coordination of the public and industry around common goals of improving water quality for public health, ecosystem health, and tourism. The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium³³ comprised more than 45 organizations that worked to implement nutrient reduction projects.³⁴ The other key ingredient to success was long-term commitments for seagrass and water quality monitoring programs. The Florida legislature mandated the creation of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPCHC) in 1972.³⁵ The EPCHC developed a baywide ambient water quality monitoring program in 1972, which assessed and informed actions in the area. The success of this program highlights how important water quality is to seagrass health and how any policy should have a clear program and mechanism for addressing pollution.

Success story 2: North Carolina

North Carolina has the largest healthy seagrass meadow ecosystem on the U.S. East Coast, measured at about 86,412 acres in 2021.³⁶ This ecosystem supports the state’s economy—including fishing, tourism, and outdoor recreation—as well as helps improve water quality and the resilience of its coastal communities. The state has implemented policies, including through the state Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP), to protect seagrass from decline.³⁷ These plans are required by North Carolina’s Fisheries Reform Act of 1997 and aim to achieve “the long term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with coastal habitats.”³⁸ The CHPP was updated in 2021 to include recommendations for protecting submerged aquatic vegetation by improving water quality. It also established a goal of protecting or restoring 191,000 acres of seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. To achieve this, the plan recommended improving wastewater infrastructure and significantly increasing cost-share assistance for farmers and landowners, particularly those near seagrass beds, to reduce nonpoint sediment and nutrient pollution. It also called for establishing a “clarity” water quality standard to define the necessary conditions for maintaining healthy seagrass habitats. Importantly, the plan incorporated the public—the recommendations underwent robust public comment and the report includes recommendations on how to improve water quality from stakeholder workgroups organized by the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) and The Pew Charitable Trusts. NCCF has also undertaken significant work to restore living shorelines³⁹ and take advantage of the natural water-filtering capabilities of seagrass and oysters.⁴⁰

Another highlight from North Carolina includes the Greenhouse Gas Inventory established in 2021, a first-of-its-kind effort to include seagrasses in state climate mitigation plans.⁴¹ Spurred by a 2018 state executive order by Gov. Roy Cooper (D), the statewide plan for natural and working lands established plans to enhance carbon sequestration—and support local coastal economies and resilience—through coastal habitat protection and restoration.⁴² As part of this, North Carolina developed one of the first blue carbon inventories—measuring the carbon captured by ocean and coastal ecosystems—to include seagrass.⁴³ Using coastal habitat mapping data and carbon modeling approaches, this inventory provides valuable information to support further restoration efforts.⁴⁴ This is critical, because seagrass is a powerhouse for carbon sequestration. This effort found that the state’s seagrasses sequester about 66,800 tons of carbon dioxide per year⁴⁵—the equivalent of taking 14,000 cars off the road—and have roughly 18 million tons of carbon stored currently.⁴⁶

Success story 3: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy

In addition to restoration, attention must be paid to policy levers that help states avoid or minimize seagrass loss. In places where development is a significant threat to seagrass, states should consider establishing or expanding programs to regulate development and institute strong rules around compensatory mitigation. The California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (CEMP) provides one example of this. This policy was passed in 2007 and requires “no net loss of eelgrass or eelgrass function” in the state.⁴⁷ It states that compensatory mitigation should be recommended only when impacts are fully unavoidable and provides several pathways through which losses may be compensated through eelgrass restoration. CEMP is implemented by NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and state regulatory agencies including the California Coastal Commission. This policy supports NMFS authorities to protect eelgrass by providing transparency and mitigation and monitoring guidelines to ensure that unavoidable impacts are compensated fully. NMFS is required to consult on actions required by various federal laws, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Endangered Species Act.

This has been a powerful policy to discourage eelgrass loss and represents one of the most explicit mitigation requirements for seagrass in the United States.⁴⁸ However, survey respondents noted that this program could be further strengthened by including more rigorous demonstration of “no loss of function”—particularly for carbon sequestration—and more standardized monitoring and reporting. It could also be improved by recommending compensatory mitigation for potential eelgrass habitat—for example, areas where eelgrass has been historically or where it is predicted to migrate as a result of sea level rise—and better incorporating cumulative impacts from multiple activities and sources of loss within an estuary. This policy also does not apply to losses from indirect, diffuse impacts such as water quality, disease, or warming, which can have significant impacts on seagrass.⁴⁹ This underlines the importance of pairing policies that target both acute and diffuse causes of seagrass loss.

Summary

These case studies demonstrate how programs for improving water quality are key to the success of seagrass conservation. Multiple responders noted how improving water quality should be a primary goal, and area targets or transplant projects alone are unlikely to be effective if underlying water quality issues are not addressed. Addressing nutrient levels through regulatory and voluntary programs should be explored in various areas. Furthermore, public engagement is an important key to program success. To this end, states should consult with and engage the local community and industries throughout this process. As with the Tampa Bay process, collaboration led to highly successful voluntary reductions in pollution. Long-term monitoring and quantitative targets for seagrass health are also critical for program success. Targets for seagrass recovery should include detailed goals for acreage, abundance, density, and species diversity.

Protecting seagrass from coastal land use is a critical and proven conservation strategy. Instituting policies such as CEMP and strong regulatory frameworks to protect eelgrass habitat would help address this gap. Additionally, the use of MPA designations could restrict anchoring, mooring installation, boat activity, certain types of impactful fishing activities, and all types of development. An example of this is the recently established Washington seagrass and kelp sanctuary, which was designated in 2022⁵⁰ as part of S.B. 5619, which restricts development in key seagrass habitat.⁵¹ These habitat-specific protected areas can increase resilience of seagrass beds; however, without tangible improvements on water quality, MPAs on their own are unlikely to address the root causes of seagrass decline.

Policy suggestions

1. Prioritize improvements in water quality to avoid seagrass loss and to improve the likelihood of success of restoration projects. To this end, voluntary and regulatory mechanisms should be instituted to improve water quality—in particular, water clarity.
2. Engage local community and industry and form collaborative efforts to champion water quality improvement.
3. Invest in long-term monitoring and quantitative targets for water quality and seagrass health.
4. Institute mitigation policies that regulate seagrass loss with clear, strong guidelines for how any loss of function should be mitigated through restoration.
5. Research methods to better map existing seagrass inventory and quantify ecosystem benefits associated with seagrasses.
6. Create economic incentives through cost-share programs to encourage landowners to reduce sediment runoff and maintain water quality.
7. Educate aquatic users about potential ecosystem impacts of boat propellers and impose fines for boaters who damage seagrass beds, as done in the Florida Statutes Section 253.⁵²

Policy examples

• Washington S.B. 5619 directs the Department of Natural Resources to create a statewide Kelp Forest and Eelgrass Meadows Health and Conservation Plan.⁵³
• North Carolina’s Coastal Habitat Protection Plan⁵⁴ makes recommendations around the goals of protecting submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) through water quality improvements, conserving and restoring wetlands through nature-based solutions, and more.
• Seagrass monitoring programs such as the Washington Marine Vegetation Atlas⁵⁵ and the Chesapeake Bay SAV monitoring program⁵⁶ compile data on current and historical aquatic vegetation to enhance collaborations and science-based recommendations for resource management, regulatory decisions, and marine planning.
• Alabama H.B. 927 supports the creation of a state Seagrass Restoration Task Force and develops seagrass restoration plans through existing legislative vehicles.⁵⁷
• Oregon H.B. 35808 would fund the Department of Land Conservation and Development to convene an Eelgrass Task force involving agencies, Tribes, scientists, and stakeholders with the goal of advancing collaborative eelgrass management and conservation.⁵⁸
• California A.B. 3999 authorizes the state’s coastal commission to require applicants of nonresidential development projects in coastal zones to build or contribute to a blue carbon demonstration project. This would encourage investments in seagrass restoration efforts alongside approved coastal development projects.⁵⁹

Within the tidal zone of coastlines across the globe, coastal wetlands support a wealth of life, capture atmospheric carbon, and buffer the ocean’s impacts on land. Tidally influenced coastal wetlands range from expansive salt marshes along the East and Gulf coasts to mangroves in the Gulf and Caribbean regions and the tidal forested wetlands of the Pacific Northwest. Wetlands are critical to fishing economies: Estuaries provide habitat for 68 percent and 80 percent of the commercial and recreational fishery catch, respectively.⁶⁰ Wetlands also act as a critical buffer against extreme storms and wave activity. For example, during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, coastal wetlands in the northeast United States prevented $625 million in direct flood damages, reducing damages by more than 22 percent in half of the affected areas.⁶¹ Coastal wetlands sequester and store 10 times more carbon than mature tropical forests, locking away captured carbon for millennia if left undisturbed.⁶²

Despite these important services, coastal wetlands are one of the most imperiled habitats around the globe. Between 2009 and 2019, 191,000 acres of coastal wetlands were lost,⁶³ the equivalent of roughly 40 football fields per day. The largest threat to coastal wetlands is sea level rise, which turns wetlands into open water. This can be exacerbated by coastal development, which prevents vegetation and ecosystem services from migrating inland, also called “coastal squeeze.”⁶⁴ Development also threatens wetlands as many have been converted into urban developments, ports, industrial projects, and agricultural fields. Lastly, nutrient runoff from agriculture degrades coastal wetlands and drives harmful algal blooms that can kill the wildlife these habitats support.⁶⁵

On the federal level, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) provide the backbone for state-specific policies. The CZMA provides states with incentive-based policies and funding for coastal protection and restoration.⁶⁶ Each state is encouraged to develop its own policies that are approved by NOAA’s Office of Coastal Management. Importantly, all federal activities must comply with state regulations if the activity affects coastal resources. This provides states with an important tool to manage offshore oil and gas activities, dredge disposal, military projects, and other federal activities. The National Coastal Zone Management Program provides for a federal funding match to the state funding. Created as part of the Clean Water Act, the National Estuary Program is a nonregulatory EPA program that protects estuarine ecology and water quality nationwide.⁶⁷ It supports local work including the creation of state coastal resilience policies. The Clean Water Act also regulates dredge and fill activities that could affect coastal wetlands.⁶⁸ Outside of the federal backbone, protections for coastal wetlands vary greatly between states.

Success story 4: Maryland

Maryland has several model policies aimed at protecting and restoring coastal wetlands. Firstly, it possesses several regulations aimed at reducing development pressures on coastal wetlands. This includes the Tidal Wetlands Act, which requires permits for filling or dredging in private tidal wetlands and licenses for state-owned wetlands.⁶⁹ The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law also requires local jurisdictions to adopt state zoning regulations for lands, including many tidal wetlands, within 1,000 feet from the Chesapeake.⁷⁰ In places where development does occur and losses of tidal wetlands are unavoidable, Maryland requires developers to have a plan for mitigation in order to get a state tidal wetlands license or private tidal wetlands permit.⁷¹

Maryland has also recently instituted innovative policy around coastal resilience easements. This policy helps the state acquire private lands to allow wetlands to migrate inwards and improve resilience to sea level rise while providing payment and benefits to coastal communities.⁷² In addition to setting aside space for marshes to transition inward, these easements also require a management plan “with strategies to reduce vulnerability to coastal hazards” and development setbacks in areas that will be inundated by sea level rise by 2050.⁷³ Maryland also has Conservation Reserve Easement⁷⁴ and Agricultural Conservation Easement⁷⁵ programs that encourage broader wetland conservation by providing financial assistance for farmers and landowners to restore and protect wetland habitat.

Success story 5: California coastal policies

An example of successful CZMA implementation is in California. Its State Coastal Zone Management Program—executed through the California Coastal Act—restricts all development activities in California’s coastal zone in order to protect coastal habitats, public access, coastal water quality, and cultural resources.⁷⁶ This is done primarily through regulating development by requiring permits and mandating the preparation of local coastal programs that guide local land use decisions.

California builds on the backbone of CZMA with several state-specific wetlands policies, including Executive Order W-59-93,⁷⁷ which established a “no net loss” policy for state wetlands and the first state wetlands conservation program in the country.⁷⁸ The order also encouraged landowner incentive programs and cooperative planning efforts for wetlands conservation and restoration.⁷⁹ Wetlands restoration in California is also supported by the Keene-Nejedly California Wetlands Preservation Act,⁸⁰ which directs the state’s Resources Agency to plan for wetlands conservation and required funding. Lastly, California’s MPA network also provides protections for many of the state’s remaining coastal wetlands, including in Elkhorn Slough, Bolsa Chica, and Batiquitos Lagoon state marine conservation areas. Importantly, some of these areas—such as Batiquitos Lagoon, through the Batiquitos Lagoon Wetland Restoration Project—include upland habitat to enable wetland migration as a result of sea level rise.⁸¹

Success story 6: Everglades restoration

Other strong examples of wetland conservation come from Florida, which has more wetland acres than any other state in the lower 48.⁸² The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and is the largest hydrologic restoration project in the United States.⁸³ The comprehensive plan has allowed for the upstream restoration work that is essential for mangroves to thrive. The first CERP project, Picayune Strand, entailed plugging canals and removing roads to restore 55,000 acres that had been degraded for a real estate project that was abandoned before completion.⁸⁴ The area is upstream of protected areas, such as the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Rookery Bay is highly affected by altered freshwater inflow due to land conditions upstream.⁸⁵

Rookery Bay was declared a National Estuarine Research Reserve in 1977.⁸⁶ An estimated 64 percent of the 110,000 acre reserve is open water, and the nearshore habitats are primarily mangroves.⁸⁷ The reserve is accessible to the public for recreational activities such as boat tours, kayaking, and fishing, as well as education and research activities.⁸⁸ People commonly spot wildlife such as dolphins, manatees, and rays, and sometimes spot endangered species such as loggerhead sea turtles and Florida panthers.⁸⁹ The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, with assistance from local partners, provides daily management. NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management provides funding, national guidance, and technical assistance.

Summary

Coastal wetlands provide critical services for nature and people. However, they are threatened by myriad pressures, most notably sea level rise. As demonstrated by the successes highlighted in this section, coastal wetland conservation can be effective when state policy builds upon the backbones established at the federal level. It is critically important both to support restoration of impaired wetlands and to prevent the loss of new ones. States should enact laws disincentivizing and regulating development in wetlands. If impacts are unavoidable, strong compensatory mitigation laws can help offset impacts to ecosystem functions. In addition to restricting development on tidally influenced wetlands, policymakers should enact measures that build resilience in these habitats to sea level rise, erosion, and storms. Other important policy actions include enacting place-based protections and managing upstream stressors such as water quality and sedimentation.

Policy suggestions

1. Institute proactive planning for development in coastal areas using the tools and authorities of the CZMA and state coastal management programs as an overarching framework, while ensuring local governments are supported in their planning processes.
2. Set spatial/functional goals for coastal wetlands, do geospatial mapping to chart historic extent and sea level rise to determine suitable future habitat, then establish protection and restoration efforts including public/private partnerships to conserve lands now to secure abundant habitat in a dynamic way into the future.
3. Disincentivize and restrict development and other destructive activities such as new barriers and dredging/trawling, especially in buffer areas adjacent to coastal wetlands that will serve as the habitat of the future with sea level rise.
4. Establish place-based protections, such as state parks, MPAs, or wildlife management areas, as well as federal national estuarine research reserves and national wildlife refuges.
5. Manage upstream stressors, such as water quality and sedimentation, through sound land use planning, restoration, and landscape level planning/cooperation such as the National Estuary Program.
6. Dedicate funding and forge local-state-federal-private partnerships to restore degraded wetlands, including reconnecting tidal and freshwater flows where possible and supporting restoration techniques that allow wetlands to keep pace with elevation gains of sea level rise.
7. Map coastal wetlands, including those in the upper estuaries, and ensure these wetlands are included in state and local wetland protection programs.
8. Support easement programs on private land to limit further development in tidal wetlands and to allow for future protection and restoration. Agricultural easement programs can help restore prior converted cropland to wetlands and create riparian buffers along coastal waterways. Legally binding Land Trust agreements enable landowners to work with conservation-minded land trusts to protect their lands’ natural resources while maintaining sustainable land use. Floodplain easements enable certain private landowners to sell lands and residences at risk of or previously affected by flooding to state and federal governments.
9. Establish strong systems and requirements for compensatory mitigation. For example, in cases where wetland impacts are unavoidable, states should ensure mitigation occurs in the same watershed and restores ecosystem functions.

Policy examples

• The South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative Regional Plan for Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia provides an innovative, regional approach to protect, restore, and conserve coastal salt marshes.⁹⁰
• Massachusetts H.1051 would establish a voluntary acquisition of flood risk properties commission to examine the feasibility of establishing a property flood risk reduction program. The aims of this program include permanently conserving the land and restoring at-risk habitats such as salt marshes to serve as natural storm buffers.⁹¹
• Connecticut H.B.7174 would inventory state wetlands, watercourses, and riparian buffers and designates no less than 5 percent of Clean Water Act state revolving funds to establish a nature-based solutions account to fund protection, restoration, and stewardship of these areas.⁹²
• The Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority’s Mid-Barataria Basin Sediment Diversion Plan would reintroduce freshwater and sediment from the Mississippi River to the river basin to nourish wetlands and restore critical Gulf ecosystems.⁹³

Oysters are an iconic part of American coastlines. Native to eastern North America from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico, eastern oysters support whole ecosystems and economies.⁹⁴ Growing on hard surfaces in brackish and salty waters, oyster reefs provide shelter and substrate for hundreds of marine organisms, including many commercially important ones.⁹⁵ As filter-feeders, they also filter algae and pollutants from the water, improving clarity and oxygen levels.⁹⁶ They are harvested by humans and serve as critical food sources for other species, such as crabs, fish, and birds. Oysters support a thriving seafood industry: In 2019, the United States produced 42.3 million pounds of oysters, resulting in $221 million in revenues.⁹⁷ Oyster farming is also a cultural practice for some Indigenous communities, who have been taking care of oyster beds for generations.⁹⁸ Lastly, oyster reefs stabilize the shoreline, reduce erosion, and protect against storms and floods.⁹⁹ Shoreline stabilization is thought to be the most valuable ecosystem service provided by oyster reefs, estimated to add close to $86,000 of value per year to areas where property owners seek coastline protection services.¹⁰⁰

Oyster beds are threatened by disease, overharvesting, habitat loss, introduction of nonnative species, and poor water quality.¹⁰¹ Many populations have declined dramatically over the centuries. Globally, 85 percent of oyster reefs have been lost, and almost all reef habitats assessed in the United States have been rated as functionally extinct, poor, or fair.¹⁰² As a result, outside of a few exceptional places with a large existing native oyster population, most oyster efforts in the United States revolve around restoration and aquaculture to rebuild oyster beds and regain their ecological and economic benefits. Oyster restoration directly supports nearly 1,500 jobs and contributes $210 million of economic output in the United States.¹⁰³

Success story 7: Chesapeake Bay 

An internationally recognized success story of large-scale oyster restoration is the 1994 Chesapeake Bay Aquatic Reef Plan and Oyster Fishery Management Plan. Oyster restoration has a long history in the Chesapeake, beginning in the 1970s, when oyster populations were decimated by decades of overharvest, disease, and poor water quality. An estimated 1 percent or less of the historical oyster population remained.¹⁰⁴ After decades of continuing decline, a 2014 agreement set goals to restore native oyster habitat and populations in 10 tributaries by 2025 and ensure their protection.¹⁰⁵ In implementing and monitoring these goals, the Chesapeake Bay Program uses clear, measurable definitions of “restored” as well as specific targets for several metrics.¹⁰⁶

A key strength of this agreement is that it provided coordination between many groups in the Chesapeake Bay Program—including NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission—to commit to working toward that goal.¹⁰⁷ States, the federal government, and nongovernmental partners also coordinated funding.¹⁰⁸ One theme that emerged from survey respondents is that nearshore habitats are managed at multiple levels, and lack of coordination between local, state, and federal bodies can be a significant barrier. The Chesapeake Bay Program is an example of state and federal agencies collaborating together to effectively restore and track progress on coastal habitats. Today, this program has restored oysters to eight of the 10 tributaries, encompassing more than 2,000 acres, and recovered important ecosystem services.¹⁰⁹ Program officials estimate that oyster restoration in Chesapeake Bay will add more than 300 jobs, improve blue crab harvests, and increase fishing revenues in the two nearest counties by $23 million.¹¹⁰

Success story 8: Billion Oyster Project restoration in New York

Oyster restoration also offers an opportunity to provide co-benefits to urban communities. A good example of this is the work of Billion Oyster Project in New York Harbor. Previously home to 220,000 acres of oyster reefs, the harbor’s oyster populations had largely been decimated by disease, dredging, and overharvesting.¹¹¹ The Billion Oyster Project nonprofit has restored 150 million oysters across multiple sites in New York City, provided research opportunities for practitioners, and engaged more than 150,000 students and adults in the study and hands-on work of restoration.¹¹² This is a powerful example of how restoration in urban areas, including some of the most polluted in the country, can build coastal constituencies that are invested in ocean health. Additionally, it brings the many benefits of healthy oyster reefs—including improved water quality, reduced storm damage, and attention to flooding hazards—to millions of people.

This work has been supported by investments in nature-based solutions by the state¹¹³ of New York and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in the form of the Living Breakwaters Project.¹¹⁴ This program aims to use reefs as natural infrastructure to improve resilience to storms post Hurricane Sandy. One hurdle for urban oyster restoration is concern over risks of contaminated shellfish consumption and disease. To address this, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation imposes regulations and enforcement around shellfish closure areas to prevent illegal harvest.¹¹⁵ The project also experienced challenges and delays getting permits from state and local government,¹¹⁶ showing how challenging it can be for restoration projects to navigate complex permitting processes that are designed for more destructive activities. To enable more projects like the Billion Oyster Project, cities and states should ensure that policies are in place to avoid harvest of contaminated shellfish, update their permitting processes and create pathways to review restoration projects, and ensure staff have the proper expertise to review restoration projects.

Success story 9: Partnerships with aquaculture

Another theme that emerged from the survey were creative ways to engage with aquaculture growers to support stewardship. One challenge with oyster restoration is conflict between restoration efforts that close off native oyster beds and oyster harvesting. However, some innovative strategies can be deployed that align these interests. Oyster farming can be a major source of economic support, tradition, knowledge, and identity for a diverse set of local communities.¹¹⁷ In particular, Indigenous oyster fisheries have existed for millennia in North America.¹¹⁸ Encouraging sustainable oyster aquaculture can benefit conservation and¹¹⁹ provide some of the same ecosystem benefits as natural reefs¹²⁰ while providing economic support and local buy-in.

The survey identified several programs that incentivized partnerships where aquaculture facilities are compensated for providing broodstock and substrate for restoration efforts. Examples of this include the Supporting Oyster Aquaculture and Restoration program, which buys oysters from growers and deploys them in oyster reef restoration projects throughout the country,¹²¹ and the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana oyster reef recycling program with the Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe, which provides restaurants with a tax credit to reuse oyster shells in coastal restoration oyster reef projects with a focus on sacred sites for the Tribe.¹²² Both of these programs have an emphasis on the importance of oysters to Indigenous people, Black Americans, and other populations in the United States.

Summary

These case studies provide several important lessons on how to improve conservation of oyster reefs and other habitats. Chesapeake Bay provides a strong blueprint for oyster restoration in other regions—particularly emphasizing the importance of setting concrete targets and having clear plans for monitoring, funding, and management. It also illustrates the importance of creating pathways for local, state, regional, and federal bodies to coordinate with one another. Oyster restoration also demonstrates how involving aquaculture growers and other stewards who have traditional connections to habitats can be particularly powerful. Such partnerships can be useful to create protected areas where sustainable harvesting and use can be encouraged and to provide support for continued management. Restrictions on harvesting should be thoroughly considered for impacts on disadvantaged populations and those who traditionally rely on oysters. 

Policy suggestions

1. Set specific, measurable targets for ecosystem health in protected areas.
2. Prioritize reef complexity, height, and potential for dispersal into fished areas in restoration projects.
3. Establish clear plans for monitoring, funding, and active management in protected areas.
4. At the local, state, regional, and federal levels, form partnerships to coordinate research, monitoring, conservation, and restoration efforts and funding.
5. Identify ways to support Indigenous and other traditional stewardship of conservation resources.
6. Provide additional funding to incentive programs that encourage partnerships between aquaculture growers and restoration efforts.
7. Invest in water quality monitoring and improvements for oyster habitats.

Policy examples:

• Louisiana R.S. 47:6043 facilitates oyster shell recycling via business income tax credits.¹²³
• Connecticut H.B.6222 would reform the state’s permitting system to establish shellfish recycling operations, as well as create a program through the Bureau of Aquaculture and Department of Agriculture to increase Black, Indigenous, and people of color farmers in shellfishing.¹²⁴
• Maryland S.B.0830 establishes an oyster shell recycling program, requires the state to map existing and potential oyster habitats, and evaluates habitat-related benefits of oyster restoration areas and the potential of retrofitting existing structures for oyster plantings.¹²⁵
• Massachusetts S. 600 would require the governor and state executive office to establish a “Blue Communities” program to provide technical assistance through grants and loans to municipalities who qualify. To qualify, municipalities must adopt five of nine initiatives, such as an oyster shell collection system for local businesses to return shells to the ocean and shellfish or seaweed regenerative farming or restoration projects. Municipalities must also develop a Blue Community plan that prioritizes implementation in environmental justice communities with associated metrics and mandates participation of underrepresented groups in aquaculture.¹²⁶
• The Oyster Restoration and Protection Plan for North Carolina¹²⁷ provides strategies to protect oysters through water quality protection and oyster sanctuaries, restore oysters through living shorelines and shell recycling, harvest oysters through clutch planting and shellfish aquaculture, and educate about oysters through intentional outreach and engagement.

Beaches and dunes are highly dynamic landscapes that migrate with the ebb and flow of tides, storms, and shifting sediment.¹²⁸ Waves and wind build up and erode sediment, ultimately creating beaches, dunes, and other coastal forms such as flats and spits.¹²⁹ These ecosystems are vital habitats that serve as nurseries for many marine and avian species, as well as vital rest stops for highly migratory species.¹³⁰ Highly endangered species of sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds frequent beaches, finding shelter and nesting habitat in the dunes, often returning year after year to the same beach.¹³¹

Beaches are also a popular destination for recreation and tourism, bringing in $520 billion in economic output annually, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.¹³² Healthy dune systems also mitigate the impacts of storm surge, high waves, and coastal flooding on beach communities, reducing the overall cost of impacts from severe storms and extreme high tide events.

Despite their immense ecological, cultural, and economic importance, these ecosystems are under extreme threat. Though erosion is a natural process, its effects are exacerbated by hardened shorelines, increasing intensity of storms, sea level rise, and the disruption of natural sand supply.¹³³ As a result, about 50 percent of the U.S. coastline is thought to be at “high” or “very high” risk of coastal erosion.¹³⁴ To mitigate coastal erosion, coastal managers often turn to beach nourishment or beach fill as a tool to replace lost sediment. Although this technique can provide protection for coastal structures and restore habitat, it can also have significant negative impacts on the ecosystem.¹³⁵

In addition to addressing conservation goals, beach and dune policy should also address issues of inequitable access. The legacy of racism and colonialism has profoundly shaped physical and economic access to beaches in the United States,¹³⁶ restricting opportunities for recreation and commerce for marginalized communities. Historically, segregation laws and discriminatory practices explicitly barred Black people and other minority groups from many public beaches, relegating them to less desirable, often unsafe, polluted areas.¹³⁷ These exclusionary policies were compounded by land dispossession¹³⁸ and forced relocations,¹³⁹ which severed communities from their ancestral coastal territories, disrupting traditional fishing practices and cultural connections to the ocean. Even today, the remnants of these injustices persist through economic and infrastructural disparities, where predominantly white, affluent communities¹⁴⁰ enjoy well-maintained, accessible beaches while communities of color face barriers such as limited public transportation, higher costs, and inadequate facilities.¹⁴¹ Addressing these inequities requires a concerted effort to dismantle systemic barriers and ensure equitable access to coastal resources for all.

Success story 10: California

With 3,427 miles of shoreline, California is a world-renowned example of coastal stewardship and effective management policies.¹⁴² The state passed the landmark California Coastal Act of 1976 (CCA) to enhance public access, protect natural resources, and balance coastal development in the public interest.¹⁴³ The CCA restricts development near coastal resources and sets guidelines for setbacks, mitigation, and biological surveys to prevent habitat degradation. Since then, the state’s coastal management program has evolved into a complex network overseen by the California Coastal Commission, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the California Coastal Conservancy, alongside other partners.¹⁴⁴

In the face of sea level rise, a growing population, and a changing climate, California’s successes in coastal management can serve as a model for coastal states, countries, and managers worldwide.¹⁴⁵ The management program also helps regulate beach-fill projects through rigorous permit conditions, substantial environmental analysis, and mandated monitoring plans, which help ensure that these projects do not cause environmental harm.¹⁴⁶

More recently, in 2023, the California legislature passed SB-272 “Sea Level Rise: Planning and Adaptation,” a bill requiring coastal cities to plan for sea level rise.¹⁴⁷ The law requires local governments to create sea level rise plans based on the best available science, conduct vulnerability assessments—including for at-risk communities—to determine adaptation strategies, and sketch out a list of recommended projects with timelines.¹⁴⁸

Success story 11: Maine

The northeasternmost state in the contiguous United States, Maine’s shoreline spans 3,478 miles.¹⁴⁹ The state’s astounding beauty and bountiful nature brings millions of tourists each year.¹⁵⁰ Mainers have a vested interest in maintaining healthy coastlines. The culture and economy of the state revolve around working waterfronts, recreation, and wildlife.¹⁵¹ In the face of stronger and more frequent storms, sea level rise, and the Gulf of Maine warming faster than 99 percent of the world’s ocean,¹⁵² robust climate challenges call for robust policies, and Mainers are meeting the moment.

The state maintains the Maine Geological Survey Beach Scoring System, which uses data on beach characteristics and historic shoreline change data to identify beach management needs and relevant actions.¹⁵³ Additionally, the recently updated Maine Department of Environmental Protection solid waste management rules explicitly provide procedures for reusing sediment.¹⁵⁴ This is important because sediment is increasingly utilized in beach fill projects to build up beaches and dunes, enhance marsh accretion rates, and raise the grade elevation for development.¹⁵⁵ As coastal development and climate change continue to alter sediment flow, sea levels, and erosion, sourcing and repurposing sediment locally is more sustainable than transporting sediment to and from distant locations.¹⁵⁶

With its coastal population steadily increasing,¹⁵⁷ the state is working to increase its coastal mapping abilities to better identify and define “coastal hazardous areas” and use that information in permitting, conservation, and development plans.¹⁵⁸ Supported by a two-year NOAA grant, state managers are developing regional and state-level monitoring protocols and building out their available resources to support the implementation of living shorelines as an alternative to shoreline hardening.¹⁵⁹

Summary

Beaches and dunes are currently threatened by sea level rise and coastal erosion. States have undertaken various policies to combat this, including restrictions on development and other harmful activities that cause erosion and habitat degradation. Although beach nourishment is often offered as a solution for coastal erosion, these projects can have significant negative impacts on habitat and biodiversity. States should enact regulations for sediment and beach fill projects that avoid causing environmental harm. Living shorelines and nature-based solutions—discussed in the coastal wetlands section in this report—can help provide restoration gains while protecting coastlines from erosion, sea level rise, and storms, but without the negative impacts of beach fill. Overall, better planning around sea level rise could help address some of these concerns. States such as California and Maine have designed policies to adapt to these changes through better mapping of coastal hazards and planning how to help at-risk communities adapt.

Policy suggestions

1. Manage coastal development by establishing statewide minimum setback standards to provide a safe buffer between coastal hazard areas and coastal developments. Additionally, reform the National Flood Insurance Program¹⁶⁰ to disincentivize development or rebuilding in these dynamic landscapes.
2. Enable managed retreat and support communities affected by erosion. States can do this by providing resources such as legal advice and funding available to coastal home and business owners and municipalities on managed retreat and buyout options.¹⁶¹ This could be supported by the establishment of a national buyout and remediation program that provides near-market-value assistance to owners who are relocated plus significant assistance for municipal entities that have to remove condemned buildings and infrastructure, mitigate impact, and build new living infrastructure in place.¹⁶²
3. Restrict dune access and create designated pathways on sensitive dune ecosystems.
4. Control erosion by implementing policies that require soft stabilization methods, such as “living shorelines” and managed retreat, before allowing hard stabilization devices such as seawalls or sand replenishment. Allow hard stabilization devices only if all other methods have been attempted, including managed retreat, dune restoration, berms, living shorelines, and wetland protection. Place time limits on seawalls and develop a policy to remove or require property owners to take away derelict structures.
5. Reform U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ policies on coastal defense and renourishment with a new focus on living infrastructure and living shorelines, managed retreat, and local capacity building for ecosystem restoration and migration, prioritizing natural analog structures such as oyster reef analogs and living breakwaters.¹⁶³
6. Use protected areas to avoid further loss and include protecting nearshore habitats such as beaches and dunes in state 30×30 efforts.
7. Improve monitoring and habitat evaluation, and ultimately improve quantification of the effect of dune loss and beach area loss on ecosystem services value.¹⁶⁴
8. Restore banks, spits, and flats to serve as habitat for migratory birds and as living shoreline protection for landward settlements.
9. Invest in workforce development for building local capacity in ecosystem restoration and 30×30 assisted ecosystem migration.
10. Develop regional sediment plans, outlining the specific needs and challenges of each region and outlining strategies to manage them.¹⁶⁵
11. Support public programs such as beach cleanups that engage communities in ocean conservation and build an ocean constituency.

Policy examples:

• Hawaii’s S.B.1456 expands the definition of beach restoration to include the maintenance and improvement of beach dune systems through management of sand and native dune vegetation and appropriates funds for two restoration pilot projects.¹⁶⁶
• Connecticut H.B. 5292 simplifies local permitting requirements for natural infrastructure projects such as dune restoration and living shorelines while providing municipalities with technical assistance to adopt zoning practices that mitigate flood risk.¹⁶⁷
• Surfrider’s “2023 State of the Beach Report” offers state-by-state recommendations to address coastal erosion, development, and sea level rise.¹⁶⁸
• California, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida have enacted strong protections around beach access and include public access improvements as a requirement for public funding.¹⁶⁹ Other states should develop and implement state coastal resilience plans that are living documents and include guidance on beach and dune management.
• Rhode Island HB 7376 would ensure that anyone who purchases property in Rhode Island understands and follows the laws with shoreline access and state beach and dune restoration projects.¹⁷⁰

Kelp is a type of large brown algae that grows in cold nutrient-rich waters and forms forest-like habitats that are reserves of biological diversity.¹⁷¹ Kelp forests provide benefits to humans by slowing erosion along coastlines, acting as natural barriers to mitigate coastal flooding, providing food, and supporting the livelihood of local communities. They serve as habitat, nursery grounds, and food sources for a wide range of coastal organisms, including many commercially important fishery species.¹⁷² Additionally, kelp can help reduce the acidity of surrounding seawater, raising oxygen levels and improving water conditions to help sea life flourish.¹⁷³ Kelp forests generate approximately $500 billion annually in ecosystem services,¹⁷⁴ such as capturing carbon and removing nutrient pollution from the water column. Kelp forests also contribute to a sense of identity for Indigenous and coastal peoples who have used kelp for generations as medicine, food, and material.¹⁷⁵

Kelp has experienced a global decline of 2 percent per year,¹⁷⁶ and studies suggest that more than 96 percent of kelp forests in northern California have disappeared,¹⁷⁷ and 90 percent of kelp forests off southern Maine have collapsed.¹⁷⁸ Kelp are threatened by climate change, overfishing, diminished water quality, and pollution.

The balance of predator and prey within kelp ecosystems is crucial. Overfishing and the historical loss of key predators such as sea otters—which are still missing from many parts of the coast—, certain fish species, and lobsters can lead to changes in trophic structure. This can in turn cause an explosion of herbivores such as purple sea urchins, which graze on kelp and harm kelp forests.¹⁷⁹ The decline of sea stars due to wasting syndrome has also driven the growth of sea urchin populations.¹⁸⁰

Rising ocean temperatures and frequent marine heat waves, linked to climate change, severely affect kelp forests. Thermal stress can lead to higher mortality, decreased abundance, and altered species composition and size structure.¹⁸¹ Climate change also exacerbates many of the threats to kelp forests.¹⁸² For example, the 2014–2016 marine heat waves in northern California were a major driver of the collapse of bull kelp forests in the region.¹⁸³ Combined with overgrazing by purple sea urchins, these heat waves reduced the growth and survival rates of kelp.¹⁸⁴

Increased sea surface temperatures and rising sea levels also pose risks.¹⁸⁵ Degraded water quality—whether from pollution from sewage, industrial waste, or agricultural runoff—can also have significant effects on kelp.¹⁸⁶ Contaminants can inhibit kelp growth and reproduction, while sedimentation from runoff can smother kelp beds. Poor water quality can also make kelp more susceptible to disease and other stressors.

Area-based ocean policy for kelp must include considerations and adaptive management strategies for climate impacts. Most existing area-based conservation efforts for kelp entail demarking a polygon on a map and restricting fishing effort,¹⁸⁷ but this is insufficient in addressing other threats such as heat waves, water quality, or disease that can originate outside of protected areas. Furthermore, according to interviews for this report, MPAs may restrict beneficial activities for kelp forests. Multiple respondents noted that permitting requirements for sampling related to research or restoration in MPAs may be so restrictive that practitioners prioritize sites elsewhere because it would be too resource-intensive to obtain those permits. Additionally, policies often prohibit interventions in MPAs, even those designed to improve the habitat quality or mitigate decline.

Success story 12: Washington

The Washington state Kelp Forest and Eelgrass Meadows Health and Conservation Plan¹⁸⁸ (SB 5619, in 2022) directs the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to create a plan to restore at least 10,000 acres of kelp forests and eelgrass meadows by 2040. The plan maps and prioritizes restoration for areas in decline, identifies potential stressors affecting health, and collaborates with Tribal nations and other regional partners on identifying coordinated actions and success measures. Ecosystem outcomes are often improved when Indigenous co-management of nearshore systems are in place.¹⁸⁹ The state kelp plan also evaluates success; informs adaptive management; and provides public funding for research, long-term monitoring, genetics, climate resilience, and testing recovery and outplanting methods.

The bill also provides funding for community engagement,¹⁹⁰ which is particularly important for kelp forest ecosystems because they are so dynamic and require an extensive community scoping process¹⁹¹ during which the state spent time in communities understanding why they valued kelp forests. As part of the 2022 Watershed Resilience Action Plan, DNR established a 2,300-acre Kelp and Eelgrass Protection Zone in Snohomish County that will prevent any development in the zone for the next 50 years.¹⁹²

Success story 13: California

California’s network of 124 MPAs protects a variety of marine and coastal ecosystems including kelp forests and estuaries. Additionally, California State Parks manages the natural resources of 128 coastal park units, which is about one-quarter of the California coast.¹⁹³ Although not specially developed for kelp alone, the California MPA system includes significant kelp forests.¹⁹⁴ Survey respondents noted that California’s MPA monitoring system has provided critical long-term datasets to use in kelp forest restoration and protection work.

The California Climate Crisis Act (AB 1279) requires partnerships between private and nonprofit entities to bring sustainable kelp to the coastal waters of the state and to identify critical knowledge gaps related to kelp forest ecosystems.¹⁹⁵

Summary

Despite the myriad benefits that kelp forests provide to ecosystems and coastal communities, they are currently in decline due to a combination of harmful fishing practices, poor water quality, climate change, pollution, and other stressors. To address these issues, states should invest in restoration practices and mitigation, with dedicated funding for enforcement and management. MPAs can be a useful tool in protecting kelp forests and should be utilized alongside investment in long-term monitoring that can provide important data. At the same time, MPAs can prohibit interventions even if they are designed to improve the habitat quality; opportunities for reducing permitting barriers to potentially beneficial interventions and research in MPAs should be explored. Kelp farming can also help provide important benefits to ecosystems and communities;¹⁹⁶ further research and investment should be dedicated toward advancing these benefits.

Policy suggestions:

1. Develop conservation and management plans for kelp forests and eelgrass meadows, with dedicated funding for enforcement and management in and outside of protected areas.
2. Support the development of long-term kelp forest monitoring programs in MPA networks.
3. Support research into restoration techniques¹⁹⁷ and applied kelp forest science.¹⁹⁸
4. Participate in large working groups across government, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions, such as the Kelp Forest Alliance.¹⁹⁹
5. Create pathways and lower barriers for restoration and research sampling in MPAs.
6. Explore the potential for allowing beneficial interventions such as urchin culling within MPAs to avoid additional loss of kelp forests.
7. Enforce mandatory vegetative buffer zones.
8. Support research and investment into beneficial kelp farming practices.
9. Reintroduce extirpated predators such as otters to Northern California and Southern Oregon. This would have a long-term protective effect for kelp forests in those areas, but it is controversial in many coastal communities.

Policy examples

• The global Kelp Forest Challenge²⁰⁰ asks states to pledge to protect and restore specific acreage of kelp forests.
• Washington S.B. 5619 directs the Department of Natural Resources to create a statewide Kelp Forest and Eelgrass Meadows Health and Conservation Plan²⁰¹
• Washington H.B.1631 establishes bull kelp forests as Washington state’s official marine forest and encourages further restoration efforts in line with SB 5619.²⁰²
• Washington’s Kelp Policy Advisory Group recommendations²⁰³ include ways to identify and fill science/research gaps regard kelp impacts, develop interagency guidance for how to apply mitigation steps for kelp, and establish a long-term interagency kelp advisory group.
• California AB 1407 requires the establishment of acreage-based targets to restore kelp forests, eelgrass meadows, and native oyster beds, with the goal of achieving restoration by 2050.²⁰⁴
• The designation process for the Cashes Ledge National Marine Sanctuary in New England would help develop the permanent, comprehensive protection needed to conserve kelp abundance and food web interactions.²⁰⁵
• Tribal co-management of kelp forests, including the incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge, can include essential fish habitat consultations and Tribal consultations related to salmon. This intentional engagement can help conserve kelp forests alongside Tribal nations.
• The Help Our Kelp Act would direct NOAA to establish a grant program to fund projects to conserve, restore, or manage kelp forest ecosystems.²⁰⁶ Eligible projects include those that address the greatest relative regional declines in kelp forest ecosystems, focus on kelp forest seeding and connectivity, or integrate Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices into the restoration and monitoring of kelp forest ecosystems.
• The California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Ocean Protection Council Kelp Restoration and Management Plan²⁰⁷ will provide a cohesive kelp management strategy to promote fishery management, ecosystem-based management, and kelp restoration.
• The Sanctuary Advisory Council’s Kelp Recovery Recommendations for North and Central California²⁰⁸ includes guidance on the research and monitoring of kelp to inform management strategies to protect resilient kelp forests and restore those degraded.
• Support organizations such as the Puget Sound Restoration Fund²⁰⁹ and Oregon Kelp Alliance that are working locally to conduct kelp research, conservation, and restoration.²¹⁰

Corals are reef-building animals that form the foundation of coral reef ecosystems. These ecosystems are hotspots of marine biodiversity and provide numerous benefits to other marine species as well as humans.²¹¹ Reefs protect coastlines from storms and erosion by acting as natural barriers that reduce wave impacts and flood damage.²¹² They provide food while supporting fisheries and tourism industries that generate income and jobs. Reservoirs of novel genetic diversity from which new drugs and therapeutics are discovered can be found on these reefs.²¹³ Many Indigenous people value reefs for their cultural significance and sacred or ancestral sites.²¹⁴

However, corals are threatened by pollution, disease, habitat destruction, overfishing of herbivores, climate change and associated heatwaves, and overexploitation, which can damage or destroy their structures and functions.²¹⁵ Coastal pollution, including runoff from agriculture and urban areas, introduces harmful substances such as nutrients, sediments, and toxins into the ocean. These pollutants can smother corals and promote the growth of harmful algae.²¹⁶ Overfishing of herbivores, such as parrotfish, disrupts the ecological balance by allowing algae to overgrow and outcompete corals for space and resources.²¹⁷ Marine heat waves, driven by climate change, cause coral bleaching and mass mortality events, further weakening reef structures.²¹⁸

Land-based pollution, including erosion and sedimentation, is another significant threat to coral reefs. Erosion from deforestation, agriculture, and coastal development increases the amount of sediment entering the ocean, which can smother corals and reduce water clarity.²¹⁹ Ocean acidification, caused by the absorption of excess carbon dioxide by seawater, reduces the availability of calcium carbonate, which corals need to build their skeletons.²²⁰ This makes corals more fragile and less able to recover from other stressors.

Harmful algal blooms and invasive species also pose serious risks to coral reefs. Nutrient pollution from agricultural runoff and sewage can lead to algal blooms that block sunlight and deplete oxygen, harming corals and other marine life.²²¹ Invasive species, such as the lionfish in the Caribbean, can outcompete native species and disrupt the balance of reef ecosystems.²²² Additionally, coral reefs are vulnerable to diseases that can cause widespread mortality. Diseases such as stony coral tissue loss disease have been more frequent and more severe and are often exacerbated by other stressors such as pollution and warming waters.²²³

Physical damage from human activities, such as coastal development, dredging, and destructive fishing practices, further exacerbates the decline of coral reefs.²²⁴ Erosion and runoff from watersheds have caused significant damage to coral reefs in places such as Guam, highlighting the need for effective watershed management to protect these ecosystems.²²⁵

Success story 14: Guam

Guam has had long-term success with its coral reef management with the establishment of several MPAs, laws banning scuba fishing, and watershed management plans,²²⁶ as well as with islandwide and regional campaigns such as Guam Green Growth and the Micronesia Challenge.²²⁷

Guam Public Law-24-21 was passed in 1997 and designated five local marine preserves. Three decades later, the local marine preserves are actively managed and funded²²⁸ and they have become generally accepted by the community.²²⁹ The law also established a Volunteer Conservation Officer Reserve Program, which has boosted capacity for conservation law enforcement and provided career advancement opportunities for locals interested in the field.²³⁰ Guam Public Law 35-78 outlaws scuba spearfishing, which lowered the fishing pressure in many areas around the island.²³¹

Guam Resolution No. 207-37 of 2024 designated coral reefs as essential infrastructure protecting the coasts of Guam.²³² This law follows in the footsteps of similar legislation passed in Puerto Rico and allows the Guam Coral Reef Initiative (the local government branch in charge of coral reef management) to apply for large Federal Emergency Management Agency grants to fund coral restoration.

Success story 16: Florida

The Resilience Action Plan for Florida’s Coral Reef (2021–2026)²³³ aims to address the critical threats facing Florida’s coral reefs. The plan focuses on prevention, intervention, and restoration to combat issues such as coral bleaching, pollution, and stony coral tissue loss disease.

Key strategies include reducing land-based pollution, managing coastal activities, and restoring coral populations. The plan is implementing measures to minimize runoff and contaminants that harm coral ecosystems; managing coastal activities include regulating fishing, diving, and boating to prevent direct damage to reefs; and developing and deploying methods to restore critical reef species and improve overall reef health.

The plan also emphasizes community involvement and education to foster a sense of stewardship among residents and visitors. By addressing both immediate threats and long-term resilience, the action plan aims to ensure that Florida’s coral reefs continue to provide economic, ecological, and protective benefits for future generations.

Summary

Coral reefs are vital ecosystems, teeming with marine life and offering numerous benefits to humans, such as coastal protection, food, and economic opportunities through fisheries and tourism. However, they face significant threats from pollution, harmful fishing, climate change, and habitat destruction. These stressors lead to coral bleaching, disease, and physical damage, undermining reef health and resilience. Effective management and conservation efforts, such as those in Guam and Florida, are crucial to safeguarding these precious ecosystems for future generations.

Policy suggestions:

1. Develop watershed management plans to reduce sedimentation and pollution on coral reefs.
2. Partner with communities, including developing community-based subsistence fishing areas.
3. Protect herbivorous fish such as parrotfish using the full range of policy options including restrictions on certain fishing gear, protecting specific species, closing areas during certain times—especially during spawning seasons—and designating traditional MPAs.
4. Develop networks of area-based management that include a range of policies from area/time closures to no-take areas; these policies should be developed in partnership with fisheries to ensure fishing pressure is not redistributed.
5. Address water quality issues with wastewater and stormwater, as well as limit nonpoint source pollution.
6. Develop signage explaining rules to communities, geared to both recreational users and fishermen.
7. Monitor coral reef resources to inform management decisions, including the ability to detect coral bleaching events.
8. Encourage equitable access to coral reefs and diving through programs such as the Hispanic Access Foundation’s DIVES program.²³⁴
9. Improve community engagement with Endangered Species Act listings in the U.S. Pacific territories.
10. Federal emergency response resources can be leveraged to assist with coral restoration.²³⁵

Policy examples:

• The Holomua Marine Initiative in Hawaii aims to conserve coral reefs and fish by supporting community engagement and information exchange for management actions.²³⁶
• The Florida Reef Tract Rescue Project is a program designed to rescue, house, and propagate rescued corals from the Florida Reef Tract in response to stony coral tissue loss disease.²³⁷
• The U.S. Virgin Islands Comprehensive Land and Water Use Plan²³⁸ includes policy opportunities and recommendations to conserve and protect coral reefs and associated fish stocks.
• The designation of Blake Plateau Marine Sanctuary off the coast of South Carolina would help facilitate to unique deep-sea corals in the region.²³⁹
• The Guam Green Growth Initiative is a public-private partnership signed by a gubernatorial executive order to develop sustainable solutions to sustainability challenges in the region.²⁴⁰
• Florida CS/CS/HB. 1557 designates the Kristin Jacobs Coral Reef Ecosystem Conservation Area as an aquatic preserve to facilitate coral reef restoration.²⁴¹
• Hawaii S.B.246 would mandate a study on the population status of coral reef herbivores and the creation of a report detailing policy recommendations to conserve coral reefs and marine ecosystems.²⁴²

In light of limitations of the 30×30 area target and the current administration’s lack of federal leadership on ocean protections, now is the time to reevaluate U.S. ocean conservation policy. For too long, the United States’ ocean policy overlooked vulnerable nearshore habitats, including seagrass meadows, oyster beds, coral reefs, coastal wetlands, kelp forests, and beaches and dunes. These ecosystems deliver outsize benefits to the American people by filtering pollution, sequestering carbon, and ensuring healthy thriving communities and economies. To properly protect these ecosystems—as well as to increase geographic representation, effectiveness, and social equity—ocean conservation must prioritize nearshore habitats and measure ecosystem health and benefits for communities with more metrics than acres.

States and local organizations are spearheading the conservation of nearshore habitats. This report showcases examples of successful and effective conservation policies from across the country and provides many recommendations about how other states and the federal government can follow suit. This is not an exhaustive list, but provides the building blocks for a narrative around nearshore ocean conservation that works for coastal communities across the country.

The authors would like to thank the many individuals who shared their expertise or reviewed this report, including Bray Beltran, Maya Burke, Danielle Bissett, Jen Felt, Joseph Gordon, Sara Hamilton, Basia Marcks, Kim McIntyre, Ayana Melvan, Todd Miller, Carolyn Khoury, Zachary Plopper, Andrew Thaler, and Melissa Ward.

They would also like to thank internal reviewers at the Center for American Progress, including Nicole Gentile, Devon Lespier, and Kat So, as well as Ming Gault, Chester Hawkins, Cindy Murphy-Tofig, Anh Nguyen, Bill Rapp, Christian Rodriguez, and Jenny Rowland-Shea for their support.

The authors also note that they are all members of the America the Beautiful for All Coalition.